James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney General and Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Attorney please update the House on how the Morrison government's JobKeeper flexibilities are helping to protect Australians from the economic effects of the pandemic?

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question. He understands how absolutely critical these flexibilities are. The dual approach of the government in dealing with COVID-19 has always been to navigate both the health and economic imperatives. The Treasurer noted that we've been saving lives and saving jobs, and trying to navigate both of those two imperatives in a balanced way. What the flexibilities that were built into JobKeeper No.1 and now the JobKeeper No.2 system did was save jobs—likely, hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country—and we are now hearing from the businesses and employers about those jobs that were saved. An RSL club in regional New South Wales said: 'The flexibilities these laws have permitted enabled us to retain all of our regular casual and permanent staff in paid employment during this period. If we had not received JobKeeper and the laws enabling these flexibilities, we would have been forced to implement redundancies.' An architecture firm in Adelaide said: 'JobKeeper flexibilities have been essential to our survival through this global pandemic. Without the government's introduction of these temporary legislative provisions, we would not have been able to retain employees and our business would have been at risk.' A restaurant manager in Brisbane said: 'Because of the flexibilities, we were able to get our staff to perform other tasks, such as maintenance, throughout the closure and keep these workers employed. The flexibilities have been so important to sustain our business during the closure, as well as during the reopening.'

Our position in JobKeeper No. 2 has been very, very clear. We think that, if a business was on JobKeeper No. 1—so they'd had a turnover drop of more than 30 per cent—but they don't requalify for JobKeeper No. 2, but, nevertheless, still have a very significant decrease in their turnover, they're what we call a legacy business. For instance, if a business on JobKeeper No. 1 had a 70 per cent decrease in its turnover and now has a 20 per cent decrease in its turnover, we think that business should still be able to have the flexibilities available. Why? Because that saves the business and it saves individual jobs in the real world.

The position of the members opposite is also very clear. In the words of the member for Watson, 'We don't agree with that.' What they do not agree with is the continuation, in a protected, clear, rational way, for another six months that will save Australian jobs and save Australian businesses. What's most disappointing about the fact that they simply do not agree is that we modelled that second six months of flexibilities on an agreement that was reached between the unions and the AHA, which members opposite endorsed, even though it did not have the protections that we have built in. (Time expired)